By ROBERT PEAR and JEFF ZELENY
Published: June 15, 2007WASHINGTON, June 15 â€” President Bush and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, pledged today to work for passage of the suddenly revived immigration bill, with Mr. Reid saying Senate Democrats would sacrifice their Fourth of July break, if necessary.

...POS Harry Reid, and all the other sh!tbag senate leaders who comply. They are all scumbag sell-outs. Anyone who supports this legislation will be immidiately crossed off my 2008 possibility list.

By ROBERT PEAR and JEFF ZELENY
Published: June 15, 2007WASHINGTON, June 15 â€” President Bush and Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the Democratic majority leader, pledged today to work for passage of the suddenly revived immigration bill, with Mr. Reid saying Senate Democrats would sacrifice their Fourth of July break, if necessary.

...POS Harry Reid, and all the other sh!tbag senate leaders who comply. They are all scumbag sell-outs. Anyone who supports this legislation will be immidiately crossed off my 2008 possibility list.

Click to expand...

What do you expect from a pile of self-serving millionaires who profit from cheap labor and even cheaper votes? What other reason could they have for being into this?

That would be a huge change.Build a fence to only allow legal immigrants in

Click to expand...

That could certainly work for stemming the future entry of illegal immigrants. However, what do you propose to do with those already in the country? Or do you think the status quo should continue (albeit, with the inclusion of a fence)?

I don't know, to be honest with you. Amnesty for all illegals presently in the country is idiotic. In the past, you could be tossed for committing any crime...put on a boat and not allowed back in. Now they're talking about letting hard-core criminals stay. What do we do with them? Put them in prison? Why not? Probably a better life than one they'd have in their home country.

The problem is regulation of people from outside the borders. You have to be either for it or against it. Philosophically, I'm for open borders and the elimination of all political borders. Borders exist for the sole purpose of setting one group of people apart from another. The implication is that one group is better than the other, which is, of course, false. Borders are economic devices meant to limit the access and distribution of natural resources.

However, given the state of global affairs (we are participating in a heinously immoral occupation which is part of a larger corporately-controlled system of exploitation of natural resources that do not belong to us, IMO) open borders might be a dangerous idea to us at this time. Until we can resolve the "Energy Problem", we need to protect ourselves from terrorists for now. It will take a while, but in the meantime, we need to regulate the flow of people into the country. We have to be aware that other countries will respond in kind to any such actions.

I have stated before that the table has been set already for the union of North America. NAFTA has essentially combined the economies of Mexico, the US, and Canada forever. That's the way it is. Americans decided that they want cheap stuff instead of jobs, so we must accept that we will be partners with Mexicans and Canadians in our economic endeavors. Sooner or later, the political borders will be reduced to the same status of the border between NH and VT. In a way, such a union will enable us to more easily manage the borders, which will now be the border between Mexico and Beliz/Guatemala (a much shorter stretch than the Rio Grande) and the Arctic coast of Canada. Control of ports and the coast will be, as now, paramount. When we withdraw our foreign-based troops and assets, we will be able to secure the Continent.

1) Do not encourage illegal immigration by rewarding it. Illegals should not be allowed any sort of public assistance or taxpayer funded health care whatsoever. This whole problem comes from the fact that if an illegal can cross into the country, he gets all sorts of free benefits, healthcare, housing, etc...

2) No citizenship for children of illegals, even if born on American soil.

3) The IRS should treat an illegal immigrant (and his employer) who cheat on taxes with the same severity they go after American citizens.

4) Recognize this for what it is: An invasion by a foreign power attempting to occupy our soverign soil, take over our government and usurp our financial and natural resources. Fight this invasion by any and all means available, including the usage of force.

Went to lunch with the retired old farts from Corrections the other day, we were yakking.. one thing we do well. One of the guys who still works in Juvenile told me how the intake people there had a question about if an illegal immigrant was detained, how should they handle it. They brought in an ethics expert and he told them if they did report it to INS it could be considered an ethics violation.

WTF, if the institution census is 196 and 10% are illegal immigrants, then that means 20 would move on and back to their countries. In dollars that translates into about 2 million bucks saved a year. This is in RI so imagine other states where there are greater percentages of illegal immigrants.

The first step is to Inform Mexico's "El Presedente" that his refusal to enforce the border could be considered an act of war. Mexico has no qualms about protecting thier southern border with deadly force. No other country in the world allows millions of illegals to cross into thier terrritory. And that whole BS about them comming here because they "Want a better life" is a non sequiter. People rob banks bacause they want a better life...should we let them?

What do you expect from a pile of self-serving millionaires who profit from cheap labor and even cheaper votes? What other reason could they have for being into this?

This sh-t drives me to drink!:eat1: :enranged:

Click to expand...

I was watching Newshour with Jim Lehrer last night and the pudgy guy who always talk opposite Rich Brooks (of the NYT) put it right when he said that latino's affected by this legislation were 6 to 1 favorable to dems, and that the pubies would be crazy to alienate them since they are the fastest growing demographic right now. I've been saying this for a couple of years, and it was nice to see this guy openly say that.

Wistah, today's pols are as out of touch with the common man as can be. Did you see our man of the people governor sold his house yesterday (one of his houses) for a cool quarter mill $$ profit.

How about sealing the border like the legislation in 1987 was supposed to, and penalizing anyone who aids, hires, or houses an illegal. As you find them, you send them home. Increase the amount of LEGAL immigrants you bring in, and create some form of worker program if aggriculture truly needs the labor. WTF, we subsidize farmers as is, so I'm guessing we could figure out a plan that would directly feed them the workers they need.

We tried Amnesty 20 years ago as a "one-time" deal, and how'd that work out for us? You've got to love a policy that says "hey, we've got a problem with ILLEGAL immigrants, so how about solving it my just making them legal immigrants". Talk about a brainstorm of an idea eh?

I don't know, to be honest with you. Amnesty for all illegals presently in the country is idiotic. In the past, you could be tossed for committing any crime...put on a boat and not allowed back in. Now they're talking about letting hard-core criminals stay. What do we do with them? Put them in prison? Why not? Probably a better life than one they'd have in their home country.

The problem is regulation of people from outside the borders. You have to be either for it or against it. Philosophically, I'm for open borders and the elimination of all political borders. Borders exist for the sole purpose of setting one group of people apart from another. The implication is that one group is better than the other, which is, of course, false. Borders are economic devices meant to limit the access and distribution of natural resources.

However, given the state of global affairs (we are participating in a heinously immoral occupation which is part of a larger corporately-controlled system of exploitation of natural resources that do not belong to us, IMO) open borders might be a dangerous idea to us at this time. Until we can resolve the "Energy Problem", we need to protect ourselves from terrorists for now. It will take a while, but in the meantime, we need to regulate the flow of people into the country. We have to be aware that other countries will respond in kind to any such actions.

I have stated before that the table has been set already for the union of North America. NAFTA has essentially combined the economies of Mexico, the US, and Canada forever. That's the way it is. Americans decided that they want cheap stuff instead of jobs, so we must accept that we will be partners with Mexicans and Canadians in our economic endeavors. Sooner or later, the political borders will be reduced to the same status of the border between NH and VT. In a way, such a union will enable us to more easily manage the borders, which will now be the border between Mexico and Beliz/Guatemala (a much shorter stretch than the Rio Grande) and the Arctic coast of Canada. Control of ports and the coast will be, as now, paramount. When we withdraw our foreign-based troops and assets, we will be able to secure the Continent.

Click to expand...

Security and the existence of the welfare state make open borders impossible.

Went to lunch with the retired old farts from Corrections the other day, we were yakking.. one thing we do well. One of the guys who still works in Juvenile told me how the intake people there had a question about if an illegal immigrant was detained, how should they handle it. They brought in an ethics expert and he told them if they did report it to INS it could be considered an ethics violation.

WTF, if the institution census is 196 and 10% are illegal immigrants, then that means 20 would move on and back to their countries. In dollars that translates into about 2 million bucks saved a year. This is in RI so imagine other states where there are greater percentages of illegal immigrants.

Click to expand...

People don;t want to talk about the fiscal, and social costs this mass invasion is having on our country. What's even more absurd, is this idea that there are only 12 million illegals in this country. PUH-leez! Try 20 million plus.

1) Do not encourage illegal immigration by rewarding it. Illegals should not be allowed any sort of public assistance or taxpayer funded health care whatsoever. This whole problem comes from the fact that if an illegal can cross into the country, he gets all sorts of free benefits, healthcare, housing, etc...

2) No citizenship for children of illegals, even if born on American soil.

3) The IRS should treat an illegal immigrant (and his employer) who cheat on taxes with the same severity they go after American citizens.

4) Recognize this for what it is: An invasion by a foreign power attempting to occupy our soverign soil, take over our government and usurp our financial and natural resources. Fight this invasion by any and all means available, including the usage of force.

Click to expand...

I agree with your first two points. Not certain that n.3 could be applied and n.4 is another one of your demented rants.

However, while those changes could significantly reduce the number of future illegal immigrants, I don't think that they would motivate most of those currently residing in America to leave. Thus, are you okay with having millions of individuals living in America without legal status, deprived of medical and educational services (those are the only "benefits" I know that illegals currently receive but do correct me if I'm mistaken) and with the potential problems (e.g. increased crime) that could arise? Or are you willing to incur the costs that would be involved in a massive search, find, deport operation?

However, while those changes could significantly reduce the number of future illegal immigrants, I don't think that they would motivate most of those currently residing in America to leave. Thus, are you okay with having millions of individuals living in America without legal status, deprived of medical and educational services (those are the only "benefits" I know that illegals currently receive but do correct me if I'm mistaken) and with the potential problems (e.g. increased crime) that could arise? Or are you willing to incur the costs that would be involved in a massive search, find, deport operation?

Click to expand...

Leave? Why the fukc would they leave when they are living on top of the world? Do you honestly beleive that talking point crap about them "living in the shadows"? HA! What a maroon. Go to an ER and tell me they are lving in the shadows. My gf is a teacher in Salem, and her mom is one in Lynn, do you think illegals are denied education and health care? More talking points from the illogical excusists. Glad to see your a supporter of the middle class.

Another stupid, excusist talking point is that ridiculous massive search and deportation crap. As if anyone is saying, or expecting that the anti-Amnesty, pro law and pro America crowd is looking to round up and deport all illegals by next Wednesday. What a load of BS. Illegals have been doing fine for the last 20+ years living here, and we haven't had any massive round up searches have we? All of a sudden though that's what we're looking to do. You seal the border once and for all, you penalize employers who hire them, and business's who aid them. You will then weed them out as some of those who cannot find work may, and I stress, may leave, and those who don't are expelled as you find them. So long as the border is actually sealed, you'll see the 12 million become 11 million, and then 10 million, etc...In the mean time, you increase the amount of LEGAL documented immigrants you let in. You ONLY do this as the border is sealed, and laws are being enforced.

Mexico loves this, they are getting rid of all their sh!t heads, their undesireables are all flocking to batty looney America, our President and all the rest of our scumbag politicians are slobbering all over them and welcoming them with outstreached arms.

Well there is another group of people already here, they are America's Legal Minoritys, Minority American Citizens, they better take another look at this Love Affair our dirtbag politicians are having with these Illegal Criminals, these Illegals are going to want a big piece of the pie that means smaller pieces of the pie for the Citizen Minority.

America's legal minority citizen now has some Competition, the war between these two groups has already started in the Prison System, now, will it spread out into the streets?

Leave? Why the fukc would they leave when they are living on top of the world? Do you honestly beleive that talking point crap about them "living in the shadows"? HA! What a maroon. Go to an ER and tell me they are lving in the shadows. My gf is a teacher in Salem, and her mom is one in Lynn, do you think illegals are denied education and health care? More talking points from the illogical excusists. Glad to see your a supporter of the middle class.

Another stupid, excusist talking point is that ridiculous massive search and deportation crap. As if anyone is saying, or expecting that the anti-Amnesty, pro law and pro America crowd is looking to round up and deport all illegals by next Wednesday. What a load of BS. Illegals have been doing fine for the last 20+ years living here, and we haven't had any massive round up searches have we? All of a sudden though that's what we're looking to do. You seal the border once and for all, you penalize employers who hire them, and business's who aid them. You will then weed them out as some of those who cannot find work may, and I stress, may leave, and those who don't are expelled as you find them. So long as the border is actually sealed, you'll see the 12 million become 11 million, and then 10 million, etc...In the mean time, you increase the amount of LEGAL documented immigrants you let in. You ONLY do this as the border is sealed, and laws are being enforced.

Click to expand...

You're incredibly dumb and I say this quite seriously - it's hard to believe you "graduated" from college. Some advice, while I understand that you're eager to post your typical talking points, do try to READ the post to which you're responding so to be sure that your talking points are applicable. I'll use bulletin points (now and in the future) to increase the probability that you'll actually understand what you read.

1. I never said that the illegal immigrants currently residing in America would voluntarily leave. In fact, I stated quite clearly, that I don't believe that the majority would leave even if QuiGon's first two proposals were implemented.

2. I never said that illegal immigrants currently do not receive medical benefits and education. I clearly stated that "I believe that those are the only benefits they currently receive but do correct me if I'm mistaken). My point in regards to those things was assuming that QuiGon's first two proposals are implemented (i.e. that they are deprived of medical benefits and education), that there would then be persons living in America who may then have an inreased propensity to commit crimes or cause other social problems.

3. Perhaps you're unaware but a '?' at the end of a sentence makes that sentence a QUESTION, not a STATEMENT. I asked QuiGon if he was willing to incur the costs of a round up and deportation as an alternative to having a group of people with no legal rights, benefits or job opportunities residing in America, (along with the problems that typically arise).

4. Your last comments are exactly what I envison possibly occuring if QuiGon's proposals are enacted. However, while the majority of illegal immigrants are border crossers from Mexico, there are also illegal immigrants who simply overstay valid visas. A fence will not deter those individual so the number of illegal immigrants will not simply decline from 12 million to 10 million, etc. Also, as the number of unsolved criminal cases and wanted criminals demonstrate, finding criminals is not a certainty in a country as large as the United States. So, there may not necessarily be a huge decrease in the numbers of illegal immigrants. Perhaps after 20-30 years, the numbers will be cut in half but what about the likelihood of additional crime and social problems over that period?

5. Illegal immigration isn't relevant to me. I'm not pro or anti amnesty, simply curious as to why there is blanket opposition (rather than to particular features) to the immigration bill. Perhaps your proposal would significantly reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants currently in the country but at what costs and would those costs be less than that incurred by a legalisation of status, either under the current immigration bill or a revised version? It's like welfare. I don't like giving welfare and free/subsidised job training to individuals irresponsible enough to have kids they cannot afford but the current alternative of no assistance would probably have more long term costs to society.

You're incredibly dumb and I say this quite seriously - it's hard to believe you "graduated" from college. Some advice, while I understand that you're eager to post your typical talking points, do try to READ the post to which you're responding so to be sure that your talking points are applicable. I'll use bulletin points (now and in the future) to increase the probability that you'll actually understand what you read.

1. I never said that the illegal immigrants currently residing in America would voluntarily leave. In fact, I stated quite clearly, that I don't believe that the majority would leave even if QuiGon's first two proposals were implemented.

2. I never said that illegal immigrants currently do not receive medical benefits and education. I clearly stated that "I believe that those are the only benefits they currently receive but do correct me if I'm mistaken). My point in regards to those things was assuming that QuiGon's first two proposals are implemented (i.e. that they are deprived of medical benefits and education), that there would then be persons living in America who may then have an inreased propensity to commit crimes or cause other social problems.

3. Perhaps you're unaware but a '?' at the end of a sentence makes that sentence a QUESTION, not a STATEMENT. I asked QuiGon if he was willing to incur the costs of a round up and deportation as an alternative to having a group of people with no legal rights, benefits or job opportunities residing in America, (along with the problems that typically arise).

4. Your last comments are exactly what I envison possibly occuring if QuiGon's proposals are enacted. However, while the majority of illegal immigrants are border crossers from Mexico, there are also illegal immigrants who simply overstay valid visas. A fence will not deter those individual so the number of illegal immigrants will not simply decline from 12 million to 10 million, etc. Also, as the number of unsolved criminal cases and wanted criminals demonstrate, finding criminals is not a certainty in a country as large as the United States. So, there may not necessarily be a huge decrease in the numbers of illegal immigrants. Perhaps after 20-30 years, the numbers will be cut in half but what about the likelihood of additional crime and social problems over that period?

5. Illegal immigration isn't relevant to me. I'm not pro or anti amnesty, simply curious as to why there is blanket opposition (rather than to particular features) to the immigration bill. Perhaps your proposal would significantly reduce the numbers of illegal immigrants currently in the country but at what costs and would those costs be less than that incurred by a legalisation of status, either under the current immigration bill or a revised version? It's like welfare. I don't like giving welfare and free/subsidised job training to individuals irresponsible enough to have kids they cannot afford but the current alternative of no assistance would probably have more long term costs to society.

Click to expand...

Please tell us what your position on illegal immigration is, why, and where you stand on the current Amnesty Bill. If I've in any way mistaken your position, then I appologize, and posting what you think should clear that up. I've repeated my position on immigration in here 1,000 times. I've supported my position by supplying facts, links, graphs, and hard numbers. In doing so, I've been accused of being a racist, and a bigot, of which I don;t care becuase such accusations only means that my information is right. I'm the product of the American Dream as my parents are both foreign legal immigrants. I speak two languages, so I know what it's like for foreigners, older ones at that, to have to learn a new one. I honestly would like to hear what your positions are. I'm not trying to bait you, or criticize what you might say. If you don't know something for sure, and are curious, ask a question, and maybe someone in here can provide an accurate answer.

So what are your views on the current illegal immigrations problem in the United States?